Weekly Worker 508 Thursday December 11 2003

Respect - fight for party

Mary Godwin reports on the December 7 members’ meeting

CPGB members voted overwhelmingly at their December 7 aggregate meeting to engage critically but constructively with Respect - the Unity Coalition.

Comrade Marcus Ström opened the debate. He described the coalition as the latest manifestation of the crisis of Labourism in Britain, following the defeat of the miners’ Great Strike in 1985, the marginalisation of the Bennite tendency in the Labour Party and the triumph of Thatcherism, reflecting the waning of the working class as a political force. This delabourisation of the Labour Party produces a reaction, which has several times attempted unsuccessfully to take on organisational form. Comrade Ström observed that Arthur Scargill’s Socialist Labour Party and the Socialist Alliance both emerged from the period of defeat for the working class, whereas the new Unity Coalition has arisen from something more positive: this year’s massive anti-war mobilisations.

Our experience in the SLP was useful, even though our efforts to transform it into a vehicle for working class self-emancipation were unsuccessful. The Socialist Alliance, in contrast, did take us forward. Standing 98 candidates in the 2001 general election and the achievement of a common political programme - albeit not a Marxist minimum-maximum programme - was a high point of left organisational unity. However, as is well known, the aim of turning the Socialist Alliance into a party was thwarted by the Socialist Workers Party-dominated leadership in favour of holding it back as a “united front of a special kind” - to be turned on during elections and turned off at most other times.

The SWP dreams of translating the millions on the streets who protested against the war into millions of votes, and believes that socialist politics are actually an obstacle to the electoralism it has now embraced. The now aborted ‘Peace and Justice’ turn, which insultingly assumed that all muslims are anti-women and anti-gay, has shown that the SWP is capable of adopting all manner of unprincipled policies - and would be prepared to act as doorkeepers for any social force, trend or prominent individual it happens to be opportunistically pursuing.

Peace and Justice has now been superseded by the new proposal for Respect - the Unity Coalition, which aims at creating a ‘credible’ alternative to New Labour in next June’s elections. The leading figure is expelled Labour MP George Galloway, who of all the speakers on the platforms at this year’s anti-war demonstrations made the best and most political speeches, not least concerning Britain’s democratic deficit.

Comrade Ström referred to Galloway’s “dodgy Labour left past” and the fact that his most consistent feature has been his vicarious Arab nationalism. But he rejected the idea that The Daily Telegraph’s murky allegations and his undisputed links with regimes such as Saddam Hussein’s should deter us from involvement. What is important for us is not the man, but the movement he has led.

There have been all sorts of rumours doing the rounds about the Respect coalition, in part resulting from the secretive way it has been organised to date. It seeks to politically represent ‘progressive’ people and those opposed to war and neoliberalism, but makes no mention of the working class except as trade unionists. However, its politics are in fact similar to those of the Socialist Alliance, as summarised in its ‘priority pledges’. In the debate following comrade Ström’s opening comrade John Bridge described the coalition’s draft declaration as mirroring the platform of the Network of Socialist Alliances when it was first set up: supportable demands alongside green-pink platitudes.

Comrade Ström informed the aggregate that the Socialist Alliance executive has voted to attend the January 25 founding conference, and said that in the view of the CPGB Provisional Central Committee we should also actively engage with the new formation. The Democracy Platform of the Socialist Alliance will present a summary of the SA’s programme People before profit, suitably updated for the European election, to the conference. Comrade Ström said it was vital to build upon the left unity achieved through the SA, and the Democratic Platform could play a role here in relation to the new coalition. He concluded by saying that perhaps Respect will give us the opportunity for dialogue with the hundreds of thousands who protested against George Bush last month.

Next to speak was comrade Cameron Richards, who introduced his motion which, while calling for critical engagement with Respect, wanted to make support for it “conditional” on the adoption of a programme which “must include a clear commitment to complete opposition to the capitalist system and open support for socialism”.

He emphasised that, although he was sceptical about Respect’s prospects and believed George Galloway was a con man, that was not the main point. The SWP has been moving to the right for years in search of the political big time. It is now willing to compromise even on the word ‘socialism’ in the hope of making short-term gains. There is a limit, he said, to the extent that we can follow the SWP down this path. He reminded comrades that, for all its faults, Arthur Scargill’s SLP unequivocally declared its commitment to socialism. He said that if Respect could not do the same, that would put it to the right of the Labour left and we might just as well fight within the Labour Party.

Complete opposition to any involvement was argued by only one comrade. John Pearson said confronting the SWP does not mean following them into every adventure. Why should we commit ourselves to building an organisation that has nothing to do with socialism? The way forward does not lie in this “rotten coalition”, but in the formation of the Democracy Platform in the Socialist Alliance, a small but healthy body, he said. Comrade Ström later pointed out that the Democracy Platform had just accepted the very approach to the coalition that he was recommending to the CPGB’s membership aggregate.

Comrade Richards’ motion was discussed at length and various amendments were proposed. Comrade Tina Becker observed that the motion effectively said we will only support the coalition if it has a programme identical to our own, which is not going to happen. She proposed replacing comrade Richard’s preconditions with a one-line paragraph: “The CPGB will affiliate as an organisation to the coalition.”

Comrade Peter Manson reminded the aggregate that in the past our tactical “support” in terms of voting did not depend on “complete opposition to the capitalist system and open support for socialism”. For example, in 1994 and 1999 we offered to back Labour candidates, such as Ken Livingstone and Diane Abbot, if they would support our minimum platform of basic working class demands, not “complete opposition to the capitalist system and open support for socialism”. It was a way of challenging those who pose left. Comrade Manson concluded that a communist approach must be tactically flexible and that we ought to evaluate Respect in the light of concrete circumstances - including the final programme and candidates it adopts. For the moment we ought to leave all options open.

Comrade Ian Donovan said that to put political preconditions on our involvement with Respect would be to make the same mistake as the Social Democratic Federation when the Labour Party was formed. Comrade John Bridge also referred to the lessons from the history of our movement, which teach us not to behave in a way which would deny us an audience. Socialism is a mass democratic movement of the working class, not a labour dictator like Scargill standing up and saying, ‘I am a socialist’. The SLP brought communists and leftwing socialists together, but it was never a socialist party in the sense that it could actually lead the fight for working class self-liberation.

Comrade Mike Macnair said that if Respect was indeed politically to the right of the Labour left, comrade Richards would be correct to say the Labour left would be preferable. But that is not to the case. Comrade Phil Kent added that if we had sufficient forces it would be worth working inside both the coalition and the Labour Party. But if we have to choose, the reason for engaging with Respect is related to the forces that it is likely to group together. These will form the raw material for a new party, and are more likely to be found in Respect than in the Labour Party.

The revival of the Labour Party left was in fact on the aggregate’s agenda, but unfortunately the item was not reached because of insufficient time. However, there is a general understanding in the CPGB that Labourism remains our main obstacle, and our key task as communists is to break the working class from Labourism.

Opponents of comrade Richards’ preconditions highlighted the need for continued engagement with the SWP. Comrade Becker pointed out that the statement by Alex Callinicos at last month’s SWP conference, to the effect that “sectarians” such as the CPGB ought to be “kept out” of the new project, shows that nothing would make the SWP happier than if we stayed away. Comrade Stan Keable agreed that we want to fight the SWP’s economism and opportunism from an organisational position which is as close up as possible.

Comrade Richards was, though, partially supported by comrade Lee Rock, who said we must have a bottom line, otherwise why not join the Liberal Democrats or the Greens? Comrade Rock was one of several to express reservations about the long-term viability of the project. He was dubious about the commitment of Mark Serwotka and Bob Crow. As to most trade union leaders, their main concern is to revive the Labour left, so as to gain more influence within the Labour Party and on the government, he said.

Comrade Richards predicted we would have no ability to influence the programme, which will be written by Galloway and the SWP. He further predicted that the working class will not take the organisation seriously, but will see it as George Galloway’s route to a comfortable job in Brussels. Comrade Richards described Respect as consisting of Marxists who are willing to water down and abandon the programme of Marxism. But comrade Michael Malkin remarked that this attitude - writing the coalition off before it is even formed - is hardly compatible with critical engagement.

However, the arguments for engaging with Respect were overwhelmingly accepted. As comrade John Bridge put it, even if George Galloway matches Arthur Scargill in wanting to be a labour dictator, and even if Respect collapses within months, it is still the place to be right now. He agreed with most of comrade Richards’ motion, including the words: “As members of the Unity Coalition, CPGB members will continue to argue within it for the immediate necessity of a Communist Party dedicated to the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism.” Comrade Becker concurred with this, saying our aim will be to transform this unstable and uncertain coalition into a party. Until the founding conference we do not know how much of a space there will be within it for us to fight for our politics.

There was more disagreement on the question of the future role and prospects of the Socialist Alliance. Comrade Richards’ original motion began: “This aggregate notes the effective liquidation of the Socialist Alliance project, caused by the misleadership of the SWP. The opportunity to unite the genuine forces of socialism has been shattered for the time being.”

Comrade John Bridge argued that the Socialist Alliance survived on a drip feed. While we should not pull the plug, if Respect has vibrant branch meetings and stands in elections, that will be the place to be, and it is unlikely that Socialist Alliance branches will continue alongside Respect’s structures. He warned against having any sentimental attachment to the Socialist Alliance per se.

Not surprisingly, considering his hostility to participation in the Respect project, comrade Pearson advocated a rigid concentration on the Socialist Alliance no matter what. He said the CPGB is partly responsible for its parlous state. Though we were in a minority at the SA’s conferences we should fight to become the majority. Replying to this, comrade Manson said the CPGB cannot substitute for the Socialist Alliance. We will continue to fight for our principled communist politics in whatever organisation we find ourselves in, just as we have done in the Socialist Alliance.

Several comrades, including Lee Rock and Peter Grant, agreed with comrade Ström that it is important to keep the Socialist Alliance together so that if Respect fell apart, which comrade Rock predicted will happen very quickly, left unity does not have to begin all over again from nothing. Comrade Macnair agreed that it is a mistake to say the SA is dead, even though the majority within it wanted a broader coalition, but he thought the SWP did not yet intend to wind things up. Comrade Ström said that we should continue to fight for the Socialist Alliance, and proposed replacing the word “shattered” in paragraph one of comrade Richards’ motion with “disorganised” to reflect this view. Similarly, comrade Macnair proposed replacing “effective liquidation” with “political impasse and decline.” Both these amendments were accepted when the vote was taken at the end of the session.

Replying to the debate, comrade Ström rejected the criticism from comrade Grant that the CPGB was too slow to get the Democratic Platform of the Socialist Alliance off the ground. We have consistently fought for the unity of pro-party and democratic forces in the Socialist Alliance since it first emerged. Just as the Weekly Worker is the recognised voice of the left in the Socialist Alliance, we will strive to make it the critical voice of Respect. In conclusion, he said that with Blairism and Labourism in crisis, we should engage with the political expression of the mass anti-war movement and seek to channel it in a partyist direction.

The amended version of comrade Richards’ original motion, which was backed by an overwhelming majority of members, reads as follows:

1. This aggregate agrees to critically engage with the Unity Coalition. Consequently CPGB members should apply for membership of this coalition.
2. This aggregate notes the political impasse and decline of the Socialist Alliance caused by the misleadership of the SWP. The opportunity to unite the genuine forces of socialism has been disorganised for the time being. Nevertheless we shall fight for what is necessary.
3. The CPGB will affiliate as an organisation to the coalition.
4. While recognising that there are many stages we must go through to achieve our aims, CPGB members will continue to argue within it for the immediate necessity of a Communist Party dedicated to the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism.

Print this page